header-logo header-logo

08 December 2020
Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Commons rejects amendments to Internal Market Bill

On Monday the Commons rejected 22 amendments to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill made by the House of Lords

Amendments  included: removal of the greatly criticised clauses in Part V that would permit a breach of international law by allowing the Government to override parts of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement as well as  ouster clauses to prevent recourse to the courts; clauses to require adherence to the Common Framework devolution programme; clauses removing the delegated powers of Ministers  to make regulations regarding market access, instead requiring primary legislation; clauses to separate the Office for the Internal Market (OIM) from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA); removal of the provisions giving the Government the power to provide financial assistance to any part of the United Kingdom and making subsidy control a ‘reserved competence’ under the devolution arrangements.

Lords consideration of Commons amendments and ‘ping-pong’ between the two Houses was scheduled for the afternoon of Wednesday December 9. It was anticipated that the Lords would stand firm and send the Bill back to the Commons in regard to the provisions permitting a breach of international law. Mr Michel Barnier warned on Monday that if those provisions remained in the Bill there would be no deal with the EU. It was not clear whether the Lords would stand firm more than once.

A statement issued by No.10 before the debate on Monday offered an olive branch: ‘If the solutions being considered in those discussions are agreed, the UK government would be prepared to remove clause 44 of the UK Internal Market Bill, concerning export declarations. The UK government would also be prepared to deactivate clauses 45 and 47, concerning state aid, such that they could be used only when consistent with the UK's rights and obligations under international law.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll